Talk:Sada Jan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

⚖
Law Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
??? This article has not yet received a quality rating on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance assessment on the assessment scale.


Sada Jan is part of the WikiProject Afghanistan, a project to maintain and expand Afghanistan-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Military work group.

[edit] POV Issues

I think there are POV problems here. The article twice mentions what the tribunal is not authorized to do. If it did it, then it obviously can. If it didn't, then it doesn't need to be mentioned here. Also, the photo caption reads like propaganda. There are other problems as well. -- Butseriouslyfolks 04:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

What the Tribunals and Boards are authorized to do, and what they are not authorized to do, is extremely important.
  1. Bush administration spokesmen routinely describe the Combatant Status Review Tribunals as "superior" to a Geneva Conventions "competent tribunal", like that described in AR-190-8. The argument that the Combatant Status Review Tribunals are superior because they appoint a Personal Representative. But the Combatant Status Review Tribunals did not have the authority to determine whether the captives were entitled to the protections of POW status.
  2. The later, Administrative Review Boards, that were, in some ways, better organized, and more professionally run, had much less authority. Even though the ARBs were held only 6 to 12 months after the CSRTs, most captives faced more allegations during their ARBs. One guy whose ARB transcript I read last week faced just three allegations during his CSRT, and faced 19 allegations during his ARB. The decisions recorded in the dossiers of the 58 captives whose full unclassified dossiers we have access to all state that the unclassified evidence was insufficient, so the Tribunals had relied on classified evidence, during the closed session. Well, the captives had no ability to challenge the classified allegations against them. If you read the ARB transcript, you will see captives who had meaningful responses to the allegations that had not been made available to them during their CSRT. But it was too late, the ARBs were not authorized to reverse the determination the CSRT made.
Further, your argument that, if they got away with it, they were clearly authorized? Sorry, I hope you can explain this idea to me more fully. The CSRTs and ARBs did things that I am extremely skeptical were authorized. And some jurists, and legal scholars, have doubts that what the Executive Branch authorized was actually legal. US District Court Justice Joyce Hens Green, for instance, ruled that the CSRTs were unconstitutional.
One of the ARB Presiding Officers routinely berated the captives who appeared before him. The Boards he presided over are clearly identifiable, even though the officer's names are redacted, because he is such a bully. The first transcript of an ARB that he presided over that I read? I thought he was drunk, or on drugs. I was shocked at how dishonorably he treated the captive. His captive was one of those fellows who was presented with new allegations that had been withheld from him, during his CSRT. The captive was extremely polite throughout the hearing. I found his rebuttals of the allegations completely convincing. If I had been on e of his Board members, and the Boards had been authorized to challenge the determinations made earlier by the CSRT, when the captives weren't allowed to hear the allegations presented to them a year later, I would have voted that he had convinced me he wasn't an enemy combatant.
But this Presiding Officer launched in to a tirade against this guy. He told him he was disgusted to learn that the captive had uttered "anti-American statements" during his four years of captivity. Well, for crying out loud, if the guy was really innocent, then surely he is allowed to complain about his imprisonment? Further, IIRC, the factors didn't list "making anti-American statements", as one of his factors favoring continued detention. This is not a good thing. The way the CSRTs were run they weren't allowed to learn anything about the captives prior to the Tribunal.
He gave other captives similar tongue-lashings.to other captives.
Another captive did such a good job at answering the factors favoring his continued detention that his Board didn't ask any followup questions about them. Instead one of the Board members said something like: "It sounds like you feel aggrieved after suffering four years of imprisonment, based on false allegations. What we have to decide here today is whether the sense of injustice you feel is strong enough it turns you into a threat to the USA. We have to remember that you have, after all, spent four years hanging out with dangerous terrorists."
Or consider Mesut Sen, one of the factors he faced was that he lead prayer sessions in Guantanamo. The administration and DoD spokesmen routinely tell the public that the DoD bends over backwards to respect the captive's religion. Well, detaining a guy for leading prayer sessions, is a violation of the Geneva Conventions.
Cheers! -- Geo Swan 13:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] disputed picture

Replaced transcluded image with inline image - {{npov}} tag as per dispute on Template talk:Combatant Status Review Tribunal trailer image and caption. Geo Swan 15:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)